(12-02-2019 02:27 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-02-2019 11:50 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(12-02-2019 10:05 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-01-2019 07:06 PM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  

(12-01-2019 06:42 PM)Mav Wrote:  At least this time the underachieving program comes with expectations in the cellar rather than delusionally optimistic like USC's.

Are you saying USC fans should not expect this program to compete for national championships? Because if that is what you're implying then you would be the delusional one.

There is no reason whatsoever USC should not be competing for national championships period!

Except for the fact that other than the Pete Carroll years USC hasn't been a contender for national championships since the 1970's regardless of who was coaching them.

That is not quite true. I can remember their game at the Coliseum in Los Angeles, USC vs. Notre Dame, on November 26, 1988 before 93,829. That was the de facto national championship game. Both were 10-0, Notre Dame was No. 1 ranked and USC No.2 ranked. Notre Dame won 27-10.

USC has in many years started off as a contender but loss a key game that knocked them out of contention. But even under Helton, they ended up the No.3 ranked team in college football in 2016 after beating Penn State in the Rose Bowl. Now if you said that they had not won a national championship since the 70's before Carroll or after Carroll left, that would be more accurate.

OK.

USC hasn't sniffed a national title since the 1970's without Pete Carroll except for one year.

Doesn't change the fact that the statement "There is no reason whatsoever USC should not be competing for national championships period!" isn't demonstrably false. There is nothing that indicates USC should be in that position.